![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
July 7, 2005
City Council Chambers
Riverton, Wyoming
Senator Grant Larson, Chairman
Representative Randall Luthi, Vice Chairman
Senator Rae Lynn Job, Secretary
Senator Jim Anderson
Senator Mike Massie
Senator John Schiffer
Representative Roy Cohee
Representative Ross Diercks
Representative Tom Lockhart
Representative Wayne Reese
Representative Ann Robinson
Representative Colin Simpson
Senator John Hines
Dan J. Pauli, Director
Dave Gruver, Assistant Director
Don Richards, Senior Research Analyst
Please refer to
Appendix 1 to review the Council Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. The following sections summarize the Council proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Council Meeting Agenda.
Minutes from the March 2, and May 19, 2005 Council meetings were approved.
Representative Philp, cochair of the Joint Appropriations Committee (JAC), explained JAC's view that the Governor had the authority to implement his proposal (which would provide additional market adjustments for certain employees), but the Committee did not feel comfortable recommending the increase when the Legislature had not so acted. The Council discussed the need for the increase at this time and the expected cost of implementing or not implementing the proposal.
Mike McVay and Brian Foster, Department of Administration and Information, addressed the Governor's proposal. The proposal would use funds remaining from appropriations for earlier market level adjustments to move employees beyond entry level salary levels. With the initial expenditures, agencies were authorized salary ranges from 95% of entry level market to points beyond entry level pay. After that was implemented with the appropriation, funds remained and further analysis showed that over 2,000 employees are at entry level salaries even though some of those employees have over 20 years of service with the state. The proposal would move those employees to a "fair and equitable" salary level, which may even be less than the average salary for the job, but would be beyond the entry level pay. The salaries for nurses specifically targeted by legislation had been implemented, bringing state nursing salaries to market and decreasing the turnover for nurses.
Mr. McVay stated that the initial expenditure addressed entry level pay levels; the current proposal would address those employees who have been with the state for a number of years. The proposal would address equity issues as well as attempt to reduce turnover of state employees. The Council discussed the turnover of state employees with Mr. Foster, who stated that the average turnover has been about 14% per year for state employees over the last ten years. Mr. Foster stated that exit interviews are not formally conducted and that while agencies are supposed to enter data as to why employees leave; there is no specific reason that can be pointed to as to why state employees are leaving.
The Council asked what is likely to be requested for the upcoming biennium for state employee pay raises. Mr. McVay estimated a "best guess" of a 3.5% increase per year in the forthcoming budget request. Council members noted that if a multi-state survey is used to determine market, the use of the same survey by those states would lead to a continuing ratcheting up of salaries.
As to overall compensation, Mr. Foster stated that Wyoming is about midlevel when health insurance compensation is considered. When retirement is considered, Wyoming is near the top of all states. Other state's percentage increase in employee compensation over the past three years was discussed, with Mr. Foster stating that Wyoming had one significant increase which brought the three-year average salary increases above other states' average growth percentages, but that still left Wyoming below other state salary averages. According to Mr. Foster, preliminary analysis of other state's entry level turnover shows that while Wyoming's might seem high, it appears to be low when compared to other states. Still, it would be beneficial to reduce that turnover. Council members questioned whether resources would be better spent on earlier years of employment rather than longevity increases given the high turnover of entry employees and low turnover of more senior employees.
Council members discussed whether implementation of the Governor's proposal is appropriate given the language of the budget bill that the appropriation was to bring state employees to 95% of market. Members also questioned why the proposal was brought shortly after the legislative session and not before the session ended.
Mr. McVay was asked to provide cost estimates of the Governor's proposal. When initially proposed, one year would cost $4.9 million in general funds. If rolled into the standard budget, the amount would be doubled. But with the delay in implementation, the estimate is now $3.2 million, since the 3% raise in July moved some of the affected employees into the "fair and equitable" range. He noted that while it appears the Governor can implement the proposal legally, it was not what was proposed to the Legislature; thus the Governor was seeking input from the Management Council.
The Council discussed the request. A number of Council members stated that they were not opposed to the substance of the proposal but questioned the appropriateness of any single Committee of the Legislature voting to support a proposal not approved by the latest legislative policy stance taken by enacted legislation. Other members noted the need to provide state employees a fair, equitable and competitive pay.
No motion was made to either support or oppose the proposal.
Management Council had been provided a letter from the Select Committee on Legislative Facilities regarding the reconfiguration of Room 204. (Appendix 3.) Representative Illoway and Senator Mockler, cochairs of the Select Committee appeared by telephone to explain the Committee's concerns. Representative Philp, as cochair of the Joint Appropriations Committee, appeared to explain the Appropriations Committee's activities regarding the changes to Room 204. Chairman Larson explained the history of the addition of a House member to the Appropriations Committee and the need to change Room 204 accordingly. Representative Illoway and Senator Mockler stated that the Facility Committee's view was that the proposed changes to Room 204 would be placing a "band aid" on the problem and that there are additional changes that should be made to accommodate the public and make better use of expenditures being proposed to reconfigure the room.
Representative Philp stated that the JAC plan intended to replace the carpet and sound system and change the seating to keep the Senate side of the room unaffected and still accommodate the extra House member. The Appropriations Committee had gone over the plan with the Department of Administration and Information. Representative Philp noted that he would like to stay with the JAC plan but would certainly be willing to discuss the plan and changes with the Legislative Facilities Committee. Chairman Larson stated that it did not appear prudent to design the room completely around the current number of JAC members since the Senate might wish to add a member later, or some other change might be made to the membership. Other members noted the problem with the size of the room and the inability to accommodate the public. It was noted the proposal was not a long term solution, which would cost in the millions rather than the tens of thousands of dollars.
Representative Illoway suggested that a design should be reviewed with the Select Facilities Committee to meet the needs. Chairman Larson stated that his understanding was that if the room were to be redesigned as proposed, the work needs to be started immediately. The Select Committee could be involved in the selection of desks, carpet etc., but if there was delay, the redesign could not be done in time for the December meetings of the JAC. Senator Schiffer moved that the replacement or modification of the sound system should be pursued, but that should be the extent of the revision. The two committees should be requested to meet and come to a long-term resolution. The motion was seconded by Senator Job. The motion passed with Representatives Simpson, Luthi and Lockhart and Chairman Larson voting no. Chairman Larson requested Representative Philp speak with representatives of the Department of Administration and Information to request them to halt proceedings on construction and work with the two Committees to reconfigure the room after the Session.
Administrative rule review AR05-005 - Victim Services Division, Domestic Violence Study. Vice chairman Luthi stated that he asked for the rules to be removed from the consent list but also requested that the rules be filed pending Council review. He was concerned with the process and whether all service providers had a chance to participate. Julie Tennant-Caine, by teleconference, explained the process the Division went through, which included two sets of emergency rules and meetings concerning those rules before the final rules were adopted. Vice chairman Luthi thanked Ms. Tennant-Caine and stated that the review would help him respond to constituent requests.
Administrative rule review 05-007 - Community College Commission, Funding Model. Vice chairman Luthi stated that he asked the rules to be removed from the consent list but again agreed that they be filed pending Council review. He was concerned with the need to adopt a new funding formula when the last one was only recently adopted. He suggested he could follow-up with the Commission directly given that the Council was falling behind in the agenda. The Council took no action on the rules.
Administrative rule review 05-025 - Administration and Information, Compensation and Personnel Policy. Senator Larson stated that the procedure for adopting new rules was being questioned by this removal of the rules from the consent list. Since the rule changes were extensive, they were not shown in strike and underline format. The Governor did not sign the final rules and asked that the rule process begin again, after Management Council had a chance to register its concerns with the agency. Mr. Foster explained that the agency was following the Secretary of State's rules on rules in not using the strike and underline format for these particular rules. No action was taken, with discussion occurring under the general topic of the procedure for adopting rules.
Administrative rule review 05-023 - Business Council, Community Development Block Grant Model. Senator Hines had asked that the rules be removed from the consent list. LSO staff explained that Business Council representatives were available to address the issue by telephone, but that staff had not objected to the rules since the provision being questioned was not a subject of the amendment and the program was a federally funded program. Representative Simpson moved to approve the rules. The motion passed.
Rule Review Process
Senator Larson questioned the process for Management Council review of rules and noted that many times the changes being made cannot be determined based upon the information provided to the Council. LSO staff explained the process used and that the statute requires additions and deletions to current language be clearly indicated. At the same time staff noted that the Secretary of State is authorized to adopt rules to implement the process. As part of those rules, extensive revisions to existing rules need not be shown in strike and underline. Staff suggested that strike and underline is generally easier to follow, but there are times when it is more confusing than a complete rewrite. The LSO could request of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General's Office that if there is not a strike and underline version made available, that there be a side-by-side comparison of the old rules and new rules. Mr. Pauli also suggested that LSO could request that the final version of the adopted rules can include a strike and underline copy when that is used. The Council's consensus was for LSO to work with those entities in order to implement the suggestions noted above.
Rules approved by postcard ballot
Appendix 9 lists the Council's action on rules taken by mail ballot since the last meeting at which rules were considered.
Don Richards, Senior Research Analyst, addressed the Council, providing a background of the two-year study on prescription drug cost containment measures required by 2004 Laws, Ch. 95, Section 310. Mr. Richards explained the results of the first year of the study, which included preliminary indications of cost-shifting toward increased costs of medical services for patients on preferred drugs; however, additional study was required. (Appendix 4.) In December 2004, the Joint Appropriations Committee directed further study in this area. Mr. Richards recounted work during the spring of 2005 with the University of Wyoming (UW) to revise the MOU for the second year of the study to focus on potential cost shifting. He reported that although the Joint Appropriations Committee voted to approve the revised MOU with UW at its June 1st meeting, Senator Scott subsequently raised a serious methodological concern – the inability to adequately control for the potential impacts of illness severity. Mr. Richards acknowledged that LSO Research staff could not fully control for illness severity given the resource, time, and data limitations. As a result, Mr. Richards reported that Senator Scott submitted a letter recommending to Management Council to not proceed with the study. (Appendix 5.) Mr. Richards concluded with a presentation of several options for Management Council to address this component of the study.
Senator Schiffer noted that the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) could be used as a resource to help provide information on the issue of prescription drug costs. Representative Simpson moved that the LSO be authorized to further research options available to determine what can be done to accomplish the purposes of the study. Mr. Richards noted this issue is only one part of the study and that other states could be reviewed to see what they have done and to include in lieu of a statistical study a summary of what other states have done along the same lines. Vice chairman Luthi seconded. The Committee discussed the effect of the motion would be to end the statistical study, but that the remainder of the report will be done. The motion passed.
LSO staff had previously provided the Council with information regarding the Attorney General's interpretation of permissible investments for statutorily created trust funds. Staff explained that the point of raising the issue is to recognize that a number of committees are addressing different affects the opinion could have, some based upon specific funds affected, others based upon a more generalized approach. Chairman Larson asked LSO to draft alternatives to address the issues presented. Senator Anderson asked for subsequent discussion of the inviolate nature of the PWMTF. Representative Reese asked for a generic constitutional amendment that would make trust funds established by the Legislature inviolate and to be used for the purposes specified by law. Senator Massie asked that the historic dimension be added, with past opinions regarding the inviolate nature of the PWMTF. LSO staff stated that the interpretation of the motion was to draft numerous options which would address the issues in various ways and staff would include bullet points summarizing the effect of each proposal.
Mr. Pauli provided an update of the legislative privilege issue. Since the adoption of the legislative privilege policy, the plaintiffs in the school finance case and state's counsel have reached an agreement in which the plaintiffs agreed not to seek discovery relating to legislative privileged items and the deliberative process if the state does not seek to introduce evidence relating to the deliberative process of the legislature. Since that agreement had been reached there have been no indications of questions relating to the deliberative process and legislative privileges. Mr. Pauli noted that there could be legislation codifying the privilege.
Mr. Pauli also explained the issue of e-mail retention. There is some question as to what e-mail needs to be retained as public records. Retaining all e-mails could be problematic over time.
Vice chairman Luthi moved that staff be directed to draft a bill placing the legislative privilege in statute. The motion was seconded. Representative Lockhart asked that a bill be drafted relating to the exclusion of some e-mails from the public records act. The motion passed.
Mr. Richards provided Management Council with an update of the type and quantity of research requests received since inception of the LSO's general research services in the summer of 2003. He noted that committee requests over the first two years accounted for only 19 percent of total research products. Mr. Richards discussed the current number of outstanding requests and responded to a number of questions by the Council regarding staffing, resources, and a vision for general research services. The Council did not assign any new research requests.
The dues for each of the entities were increased and the Council discussed the use made of Council of State Governments (CSG) and NCSL. Senator Anderson moved and Representative Robinson seconded that LSO be authorized to use funds available in section 1 of the legislative budget bill to pay the increased fees. The motion passed.
Mr. Pauli explained LSO's current policy relating to maternity leave. The LSO policy was compared to the executive branch policy with the major difference being that there can be no donation of sick leave within LSO to employees whose sick leave has been exhausted. Vice chairman Luthi moved that the draft LSO policy on donation of sick leave provided be adopted. (Appendix 6.) The motion was seconded and passed. Senator Schiffer moved that a bill be drafted to allow the donation of sick leave among the branches of state government. The motion passed.
Chairman Larson explained that there is an expected shortfall in the out-of-state travel budget. If the current trend is continued, there will need to be a curtailing of travel or a supplemental budget. Mr. Pauli noted that there is usually a substantial reversion of funds which might cover the shortfall. Chairman Larson stated that he was bringing the issue to the Council in order to determine if the current policy is to be retained or modified. Representative Reese moved to continue the current policy. The motion was seconded and passed.
Mr. Pauli discussed the issue of a policy to cover the situation where meals are provided at state government expense and legislators are paid per diem. Senator Job suggested that the Council should consider establishing parameters. Chairman Larson asked that staff draft a policy along the lines of the executive branch policy regarding this issue for the Council's consideration.
Mr. Pauli stated this issue arose when a legislator asked about using his private airplane to take other legislators to a legislative meeting. He explained that the State Auditor claimed that executive branch employees would not be reimbursed for such travel and neither should members of the legislative branch based upon the state risk manager's position that the travel exposes the state to unreasonable liability and is not covered by the state's insurance. Mr. Pauli explained that the auditor's written policy does not actually forbid travel by private aircraft and that it appears state liability exists, regardless of whether reimbursement is paid. He provided a draft policy regarding the use of private aircraft modeled on the policy in Alaska. Chairman Larson stated that he was not in favor of the policy as drafted and would prefer to simply allow reimbursement for legislative use of private aircraft. Vice chairman Luthi moved to affirm the policy as it previously existed and to lift the ban on private aircraft travel. The motion passed. Staff asked for direction regarding whether reimbursement would be allowed if a legislator is a passenger in a private aircraft flown by another legislator or a private pilot. Chairman Larson stated that reimbursement should be allowed in that case unless otherwise prohibited by law.
Senator Schiffer moved the technical corrections to policy 2a subparagraph (e) of the Travel Regulations. (Appendix 7.) The motion passed.
Chairman Larson stated that the Committee had asked for an additional study item relating to geologic conditions in and around Yellowstone Park and monitoring of potential volcano activity. The Council discussed the need. Senator Schiffer moved to grant the request and asked the Council to vote no. The motion failed unanimously.
Representative Wasserburger and Senator Coe addressed the Council. Representative Wasserburger asked the Council to allow the Joint Education Interim Committee to address the issue of matching funds for the Ellbogen Foundation during the interim and provided background material on the Foundation. (Appendix 8.) He stated that no additional meetings or committee budget was being requested. The program provides funding for teachers to become nationally board certified. Senator Anderson moved to allow the Joint Education Committee to pursue the issue. Senator Job declared a conflict. The motion passed.
Upon Senator Schiffer's motion, the Council went into executive session from 3:15 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. to discuss personnel matters.
There being no further business, Chairman Larson adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Senator Ray Lynn Job, Secretary